Lovely shot!

Posted by Alexandru Savu at January 25, 2007 01:27 PM

great eyes

Posted by Carly at January 25, 2007 08:47 PM

That was fun!

Posted by Dov at January 26, 2007 01:04 PM

This series continues to be interesting, even though the light setup remains the same. I'm not sure what makes it so intriguing. There's just this feeling like it's just you and the model, trapped in this silent world. The intensity makes you want to look away, but the eyes draw you in and keep you there.

Posted by picturegrl at January 26, 2007 11:48 PM

Brooks - you are the master! Simply awesome!

Posted by Jerry Moores at January 27, 2007 01:15 PM

Hmm, I don't understand what the intrigue is with this lighting.

It would be hard to take a bad photo of this woman, but with all due respect, so much more could be done, in my opinion.

Am I missing something here ?

Posted by K.C. at January 27, 2007 06:54 PM

KC-- with all due respect, we come here to admire and respect the work of this photographer. If you want to criticize it and ask questions like, "am I missing something here?," take photos of your own and do lighting how you like instead of being rude to someone else's art.

Posted by Carly at January 27, 2007 10:58 PM

Hey K.C. I sent her agency your info and told them to contact you so you could shoot some real photos of her. It's a series. If you read the description, you would know that I have done more with her, but every person in this series is shot the same way.

Posted by Brooks at January 28, 2007 10:51 AM

I made what I thought was a sincere effort to respectfully say 'I don't get it.' I did ask if I was missing something.

I'm sorry my inquiry offended anyone. So much for being open to discussion.

Posted by K.C. at January 28, 2007 08:29 PM

I don't want to heat up the debate, but don't you think that a good picture becomes a timeless icone, when it generates a controversy. In this sense, KC is right about how he gave his opinion.

BROOKS : Am I wrong, when saying that you prefer opinions instead of yes-sayer?

Honestly, I was really surprised by this picture and I think it deserves another status than the other pictures on this blog. It has something...I don't know. Perhaps it's the mix between this clean, perfect portrait shoot, theT-Shirt, the mention Rockstar on the T-Shirt and the eyeglasses. It's also about the relationship between the photographer and the model you can read in her eyes. There is a whole story. Up to you to read it !

Brooks : I love it !

Posted by Ivan P Simeon at January 29, 2007 01:58 AM

Just had a look at her portfolio and, honestly, the picture on this blog is in my opinion the best one. It's the only picture where she isn't wearing a mask. She is not playing on this picture, she is herself.

It's very difficult to make them show there real face and I think Brooks did it. Isn't it the signature of a Master ?

Posted by Ivan P Simeon at January 29, 2007 02:07 AM

Thanks Ivan. I understand what you're saying, but in this case I have a different opinion on what constitutes constructive criticism. "I don't get it" and "so much more could be done" are useless statements without any other statements to back them up. First off, if I did something more with her in THIS shot, then it wouldn't be part of the series, would it? When I stand someone in front of these two cheap lights from Home Depot, I'm not trying to make some statement about how cool I can pose someone or how hot my lighting skills are any more that Avedon tried to do those things when he stood them in front of white seamless in The American West. Now, I'm no Avedon, but some of my reasons for doing this the way I did are probably similar.

The difference being that, unlike you're critique of this image, I sometimes actually try to get them to act slightly. I don't want goofy faces or a lot of emotion, but maybe just a slight look that could be interpreted a few different ways. She was wearing the Rockstar shirt so I told her to give me a little attitude. Not too much, I didn't want it to be a caricature. I wanted her to look a little tough. I think that's what I got, so to me it's a story, even though it's a different story than the one you got from it, which is great!

So, the way KC critiqued the image was interpreted by me and others as "I don't know what all the fuss is about, I think this is boring." Great, but how does that help anyone but KC? It's no more help, or information than the ubiquitous "Great Shot" comment. If "this sucks" comments were as common, I wouldn't have responded to it either, but it actually came off as rude, so I took a little jab at him. I'm sure it didn't hurt his feelings, even though I have NO IDEA who he is or what he does since he's really anonymous when he comments.

I have a crying kid, gotta go.

Posted by Brooks at January 29, 2007 07:21 AM

To add something VERY important. I put much more weight on Ivan's comments here than most people because he is a great photographer and I respect his art. I know that he knows what he's talking about even though I don't always agree. When I saw I don't always agree, I'm not limiting that to his negative critiques, but also some of his glowing reviews of my images. The fact that he can sometime read more into shots of mine than I can, sometimes makes me uncomfortable, but makes me proud at the same time. Now, if you have something that you think is important to say, show your face or it may be deemed unimportant to those who like to know who they're talking to. I'm just sayin. :-)

Posted by Brooks at January 29, 2007 07:29 AM

A great deal more was read into my comments than I was saying and asking.

I asked what I was missing. It's now been explained that it's part of a series, hence the lighting etc.. Thank you for answering my question.

And yes, a great deal more could be done with her. Meaning she has great potential as a model, facial features, eyes etc.. How you perceived this statement never occurred to me nor would I have said that had I even though it.

As I stated above, I tried to be careful as to not offend. Oh well.

Posted by K.C. at January 29, 2007 10:42 PM

Thanks KC. I understand, but I have one more question. Couldn't the statement "more could be done with her" be said of any image of a female? I hear you saying that I didn't understand that statement, but I don't know of any other way to interpret it. No portrait contains all ways that could have been done, does it? I would argue that many of the most famous portraits of all time show a subject with little or no expression, or are flatly lit. Would you tell those photographers the same thing?

Posted by Brooks at January 30, 2007 12:52 AM

Looks like the KC guy's not making any freinds with your clique. I have THOUSANDS of ideas, but like some, I'll only use two.

Posted by Randy (Rudy) Butler at January 30, 2007 11:45 AM

hmmm ... after reading all the hullabaloo (is that a word?) I checked out Marissa's portfolio site, and I have to say, this is by far one of the best photos of her. Subtle but very sexy!

Posted by steve at February 17, 2007 09:48 AM